Walt Disney
-
Posts
8,285 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Walt Disney
-
-
2 hours ago, Daxtreme said:
Fox boss James Murdoch could be next Disney CEO in possible merger – report
He would be a good candidate because he isn't a hold-over from the Eisner regime and would bring some outside ideas, which Disney needs. That being said, I don't think he is a front-runner. However, I am liking this deal more and more. Disney needs some new outside executives.
-
8 minutes ago, dudalb said:
And the fact is the Marvel angle is probably a minor factor in this deal. Getting the massive Fox Film Library for it upcoming streaming service ,for instance, is much more important to Disney.
In the end, it's all about the Benjys,and Disney is smart enough to let Ryan Reynolds do his R rated thing given how lucrative..and inexpensive..it would be.
My main concern is what happens with Fox Searchlight. It is willing to back some risky indie films,and small indie films to not seem to be high on the Mouse's agenda. it's one thing to greenlight a low budget R rated Horror film, or something like Deadpool; to bankroll something like "Lady Bird" is another matter.
The film library is really the main reason behind the deal. The film rights to the Marvel characters are something that is important to fans of the MCU, so we tend to focus on it (as I am sure Kevin Feige does as well).
I wonder if Disney would use Fox Searchlight as its way to re-enter the low budget movie market after they shut down Miramax. With the streaming service, added content is certainly helpful. Additionally, when Disney shut down Miramax, Alan Horn wasn't in charge of Walt Disney Studios, and he may prefer to have some low budget R rated films.
-
6 minutes ago, Boxofficerules said:
WB could fudge it’s way to $250, just “borrow” some money from Father Figures, although that’s gonna need every penny it can get.
Or say they made a mistake with Wonder Woman's gross and take some of that money. Wonder Woman has plenty to give JL.
-
13 minutes ago, 4815162342 said:
So much wrong here.
AT&T buying WB or Comcast buying NBC Universal are vertical mergers, two completely different industries coming together.
Disney buying Fox, etc. is a horizontal merger, which triggers much more intense regulatory scrutiny.
Forgetting about horizontal mergers in general, and instead focusing on the movie industry specifically, the only time I can remember a merger of studios being held up was when Fox tried to purchase MGM in the late 1920's-early 1930's. And the only reason it was held up is because Louie B. Mayer used his connections in government to raise anti-trust issues, which delayed it long enough for William Fox to be hurt by the Great Depression so he could no longer afford to buy MGM. There is no other precedent for the government to prevent mergers within the film industry of this type.
The merger of content distributors like Comcast and AT&T and content producers has raised issues that just do not exist here.
-
4 minutes ago, YourMother said:
I meant through the FCC. Comcast bought Universal for $30B but this is a $60B deal and allows more control for the marketplace.
It reduces the number of major studios from 6 to 5, but it isn't the same as Comcast's purchase of Universal or AT&T's attempted purchase of Warner Bros. I think Comcast buying Fox would have faced much tougher scrutiny from regulators. In the end, it is just one movie studio buying another and it isn't the top 2 studios merging. Plus, the items that would have gotten regulators to stop the deal aren't included in the purchase (Fox broadcasting network, Fox News, Fox sports network).
-
Just now, YourMother said:
I don’t like a monopoly but I doubt the deal happens.
It is fun for me to think about, but I remain highly skeptical. Not because of regulators blocking it, but because it is such a big turn-around to want to buy WB a few years ago to be willing to sell now. But, better to sell to Disney than to Comcast. And seeing the Wall Street reaction to the deal makes me think there is a chance this could actually go through.
-
1 minute ago, Sand-omJC said:
Someone did just up there say Fox Network wasn't apart of the deal.
Fox broadcast network isn't. But the TV production and cable channels FX and Nat geo are, as well as the regional sports cable stations.
-
1 minute ago, Sand-omJC said:
Would this deal include the Simpsons? That's Fox TV, not movies.
Yes. The deal as it has been reported (and if it goes through) would be for the Fix studio, TV production and regional sports networks, FX and Nat Geo.
Edit: DamnitGeorge beat me to it. Now I understand his username.
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Jonwo said:
As I mentioned, I wouldn't be surprised if the FOX name is licensed to Disney from 21st Century Fox since FOX the network and FOX News aren't part of the deal.
I doubt Disney will license the name. If the name comes in the deal, they'd use it. I can't see them paying to use the Fox name when they can use the Touchstone name for free. If the Fox name meant so much, Disney would have jumped to remove it from ESB and ROTJ.
-
9 minutes ago, Barnack said:
How can one know that ? Specially with the strong no R-rated movie close they have, that movie would have maybe never been made if someone has powerful at Fox like Kinberg didn't push it.
They are making movies with a lot more obscure characters than Deadpool. It would have been made. Maybe not R-rated, so if the curse words were what you really liked about the movie, yeah you woulda lost out. But a Deadpool movie would have been made.
-
1 minute ago, YourMother said:
Another possibility is that Fox becomes their Touchstone.
If the deal goes through and they get the Fox studio name in the deal, I think that's a strong possibility. The Fox brand name has more value than Touchstone, so it makes sense.
-
2 minutes ago, Nova said:
My point was that Disney would have never green lit a Deadpool movie to begin with. Fox only green lit out of desperation and fan demand. And Logan would have never have been made either.
You're right about Logan because it is a franchise finisher. Fox is forcing itself to reboot the character if the Disney deal falls through because their X-Men films have been built around Wolverine.
Deadpool would have been made. I don't understand that argument at all.
-
This decade has definitely been a Disney decade. I was wondering if they could still be successful at this level the next decade. Buying Fox will give them Avatar, which means Disney can keep this level of success going. They could also give Star Wars a rest for a few years until the new trilogy is ready, which helps to keep it fresh.
-
3
-
-
-
19 minutes ago, AJG said:
ITS GOING DOWN BITCH
Great news!!!
-
13 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:
The weekend after Thanksgiving weekend is always DEATH!
It doesn't feel that way. It feels like it is giving Thor:R life.
-
14 minutes ago, dudalb said:
What it comes down to is 21st Century Fox the Corporation has decided to concentrate on it's news, sports,and TV networks and get out of the content producing business (except. of course, for News and Sports;depnding on outside providers for it "fictional"programing). Fox is selling,and only question is who will give Fox the Best Deal. I think that Fox was not quite happy with Disney's initial offer,deided to shop Fox studios around,and decided that Disney would probably give them the best deal after all.
The bit about sports is intriguing in that article, maybe part of the deal would be ESPN going over to Fox, since ESPN has become a major headache for The Mouse.
There were a few things in the article that I found interesting. The first was that it was written about 2 weeks before Deadline reported that the talks had renewed. That leads me to believe that the author has a good read on the situation.
The second is that it is in Fox's best interest to sell now when their assets are at their highest value. The longer they delay selling, the worse their positon gets, which lowers the purchase price. Therefore, a deal should happen sooner, rather than later.
The third is how badly Sony and Paramount are doing. I figured Sony wasn't doing so well, but Paramount surprises me. Fox being a much more valuable studio than Paramount surprises me. Paramount has a massive film library that is arguably much larger than Fox's. So Fox's value must be that they are a much more successful film studio right now. Fox also makes sense because Disney could get Star Wars Episode IV, X-Men, FF and the Avatar franchise (and the Avatar franchise sets Disney up nicely for the 2020's), but that is stuff that we already knew.
-
-
5 minutes ago, Barnack said:
It was the moment the first weekend estimate of 100m came out and went it went to 93m estimate imo, talk of not reaching 250m started right away on the message board if I remember correctly. 2.68 is not a specially bad multiplier for a a giant superheroes a bit far in is storyline and with he previous entry multiplier.
Release schedule and lack of direct competition for a long while made it really possible to make a bit more than 2.7, but it is far from surprising if it does not happen imo.
There is no best case scenario. Under $250M is horrible. It doesn't matter if it's $247M or $230M. They're both a horrible end result.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Barnack said:
Isn't it a big difference outside the summer for family/kid type title week days and weekend/holiday days and expecting larger drop for those.
Both drop seem in the average expectation zone, the issue with JL is not this monday drop, it is last wednesday/thursday/friday drop, since then they are normal/good relative drop but they carry that bad stretch and does not recover.
MJ2: 2.55m
FB monday: 2.16m
JL monday: 2.1m
Beast did 75.86m after that day, if it keep exactly Beast pace and does 73.75m, it will end up with 247.75m (will not be bad under the circumstance), if it continue to loose ground from time to time
Hunger games made 80m if it follow MJ2 trend it would finish around 241.7m
It's bad. There's no way around it. Under $250M is a disaster. That was unthinkable even a week ago.
-
3 hours ago, grey ghost said:
But 4 movies over 800 m and 6 movies over 600 m is kind of incredible.
What other genres can boast those kinds of numbers?
Over 3 billion from a single genre is unprecedented, not including Avatar's freak of nature global take.
That is very true. I guess those screams about superhero fatigue that we have been hearing since 2012 still aren't right.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Rebeccas said:
2017 feels like 2014 adjusted for inflation. Both years had mostly good/great superhero films that did well with critics and at the box office although none hit $1 billion, with one notable outlier that fucked it up (TASM2/JL).
Similar, but 2014 had only one exceptional BO performance with GOTG. 2017 had 2 with WW and (ironically enough) GOTG2.
-
10 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:
I think 2016 was a more successful year, 2017's end note wasn't as good as it supposed to be
2012 was probably the most successful year for superhero movies. Adjusted for inflation, none of the 2017 superhero films comes close to The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises domestically.
2017 certainly had the most superhero movies and only one seems to be a bomb, but not as great as 2012.
-
Box Office wise, CW is similar to BvS. CW is a Captain America movie, but with enough other Marvel characters that it is a big cross-over. However, it is not an Avengers movie. It's somewhere in the middle of a Captain America movie and an Avengers movie. Similarly, BvS is not a Man of Steel sequel and it isn't a Justice League film. It is somewhere in the middle.
Just to be clear, that does not mean that IW will do JL numbers.
-
1
-
Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology
in Box Office Discussion
Posted · Edited by Walt Disney
Their leading in house candidates were Staggs and Rasulo, both of whom were horrible choices. Murdoch has experience equal to Staggs and Rasulo, but he doesn't have the stench that comes with being from the Eisner regime. Disney has been sorely needing new ideas. That's why the strategy of buying whole companies has been so great because they can bring in people like Lassetter (I know that is taboo to say, but he was important to the company), Feige, Kennedy, and Murdoch would be good as well. Murdoch is different from the previous 3 because his experience is with managing a corporation, as opposed to just a movie studio.
I doubt he is the next CEO, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be a good choice.